3 ms·

Let's call your 90s example what we now know it was: a bubble. Software engineering salaries are substantially above the US mean and those that receive them ar

Let's call your 90s example what we now know it was: a bubble. Software engineering salaries are substantially above the US mean and those that receive them are on track to be solidly upper middle class. They're not so high that you are free to make irresponsible financial decisions with no consequences.

rhelz 3y ago
Two points: 1. Most of the companies on that list are more profitable now than they were back then, and 2. My grandfather was a janitor, who never made more than $50 a week, and his kids never had to share a bedroom. He was able to buy a house and put his kids through college. Its been several generations since we've had an economy which actually functions the way its supposed to. Half the people alive have never experienced it and really lack a frame or reference here.
- ElevenLathe 3y ago
  The sad truth is that the era of our grandfathers (the Fordist era, as a shorthand) was an insane anomaly in the history of political economy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to bring it back, but it was grandpa and his peers that got lucky, not us who got unlucky.
  - rhelz 3y ago
    The reason I have a hard time with the luck theory is that companies are far more profitable, and workers are far more productive today than they were back then. So why all the advice for tech workers to just accept that they have to live in poverty. And yeah, that's the word for it. The recommended lifestyle is not recognizable as anything like middle class. Don't buy a home. Don't go to college or send your kids to college. Commute from somewhere we don't have to see you or associate with you.
    - zeroCalories 3y ago
      The problem isn't pay, the problem is the cost of housing(and education). Even if everyone got a 3x pay raise we would probably see a 4x increase in housing costs because fundamentally there is a supply issue. Until politicians are ready to tank the housing market by either investing in public housing, up zoning, deregulating, etc. the problem will never get better. You can still participate in the system if you want, but I refuse to take on life ruining risk to join a rat-race where lead poisoned boomer home owners get to squeeze me for 50% of my salary every month. If we lived in a sane economy with good labor protections(like the eu), or fair housing prices(like Tokyo) then we could talk about it.
    - ElevenLathe 3y ago
      Agreed that we are wealthier now as a planet and a country than during the Fordist era, but that's why it's called political economy. Our society is richer but labor is worse off. This is in line with historical norms throughout almost all of recorded history. Tyranny and poverty are the rule, not the exception. I agree that this state of affairs is unacceptable but from my perspective it's just good luck that my grandpa was able to live during the era he did. He certainly didn't plan it that way!
      - rhelz 3y ago
        Well, I’m glad we can agree that the current situation is unacceptable—my grandfather, who was a janitor, would have been ashamed if that’s how his family had to live. OTOH, my other grandfather, who belonged to a union, fought hard so that his family didn’t have to live like that. Americans used to make their own luck.
  - euroderf 3y ago
    "insane anomaly" = "solid progress that we've since backslid on"
    - ElevenLathe 3y ago
      Sure, I'm not against widespread middle class prosperity, just annoyed when people present their greatest generation parents as an example of a norm that we are failing to meet. It wasn't normal, it was extremely bizarre. If we want to make that progress back, we'll have to do lots of radical stuff. Labor will have to be militant again, or we'll need some kind of external pressure like an ascendant USSR, or both, and it still may not be possible. It certainly won't happen just voting for Democrats every two years.
  - lednax 3y ago
    The laws were also different though. Trickle down economics is a fairly “new” concept (and total failure) and that has certainly fucked the economy up. By cutting taxes to the wealthy (among the many other laws that benefits corporations over individuals, etc) the gap/disparity between the haves and have nots has increased tremendously. A vacuum salesman in the 70s/80s could afford a house, children, etc. I don’t think they were lucky but they also didn’t have the chips stacked against them.

rhelz 3y ago

Two points: 1. Most of the companies on that list are more profitable now than they were back then, and 2. My grandfather was a janitor, who never made more than $50 a week, and his kids never had to share a bedroom. He was able to buy a house and put his kids through college. Its been several generations since we've had an economy which actually functions the way its supposed to. Half the people alive have never experienced it and really lack a frame or reference here.

ElevenLathe 3y ago
The sad truth is that the era of our grandfathers (the Fordist era, as a shorthand) was an insane anomaly in the history of political economy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to bring it back, but it was grandpa and his peers that got lucky, not us who got unlucky.
- rhelz 3y ago
  The reason I have a hard time with the luck theory is that companies are far more profitable, and workers are far more productive today than they were back then. So why all the advice for tech workers to just accept that they have to live in poverty. And yeah, that's the word for it. The recommended lifestyle is not recognizable as anything like middle class. Don't buy a home. Don't go to college or send your kids to college. Commute from somewhere we don't have to see you or associate with you.
  - zeroCalories 3y ago
    The problem isn't pay, the problem is the cost of housing(and education). Even if everyone got a 3x pay raise we would probably see a 4x increase in housing costs because fundamentally there is a supply issue. Until politicians are ready to tank the housing market by either investing in public housing, up zoning, deregulating, etc. the problem will never get better. You can still participate in the system if you want, but I refuse to take on life ruining risk to join a rat-race where lead poisoned boomer home owners get to squeeze me for 50% of my salary every month. If we lived in a sane economy with good labor protections(like the eu), or fair housing prices(like Tokyo) then we could talk about it.
  - ElevenLathe 3y ago
    Agreed that we are wealthier now as a planet and a country than during the Fordist era, but that's why it's called political economy. Our society is richer but labor is worse off. This is in line with historical norms throughout almost all of recorded history. Tyranny and poverty are the rule, not the exception. I agree that this state of affairs is unacceptable but from my perspective it's just good luck that my grandpa was able to live during the era he did. He certainly didn't plan it that way!
    - rhelz 3y ago
      Well, I’m glad we can agree that the current situation is unacceptable—my grandfather, who was a janitor, would have been ashamed if that’s how his family had to live. OTOH, my other grandfather, who belonged to a union, fought hard so that his family didn’t have to live like that. Americans used to make their own luck.
- euroderf 3y ago
  "insane anomaly" = "solid progress that we've since backslid on"
  - ElevenLathe 3y ago
    Sure, I'm not against widespread middle class prosperity, just annoyed when people present their greatest generation parents as an example of a norm that we are failing to meet. It wasn't normal, it was extremely bizarre. If we want to make that progress back, we'll have to do lots of radical stuff. Labor will have to be militant again, or we'll need some kind of external pressure like an ascendant USSR, or both, and it still may not be possible. It certainly won't happen just voting for Democrats every two years.
- lednax 3y ago
  The laws were also different though. Trickle down economics is a fairly “new” concept (and total failure) and that has certainly fucked the economy up. By cutting taxes to the wealthy (among the many other laws that benefits corporations over individuals, etc) the gap/disparity between the haves and have nots has increased tremendously. A vacuum salesman in the 70s/80s could afford a house, children, etc. I don’t think they were lucky but they also didn’t have the chips stacked against them.